Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Naveen Suhag on 28 May, 2020
BEFORE THE CLOSURE PERIOD JUDGE
AT BENGALURU
IN THE COURT OF THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MAY, 2020
-: PRESENT :-
S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI, B.A. LL.B.,
LIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Special Judge,
Bengaluru.
S. C. No. 1085/2015
Complainant : State of Karnataka
Yalahanka New Town Police Station,
Bengaluru
[Rep. by Public Prosecutor]
/ Vs /
Accused : Naveen Suhag
S/o R.S. Suhag,
Aged about 28 years,
R/o Maruthi Vidyalaya Road,
10th Main, Agara Main Road,
Prakruthi Town Ship,
Babusapalya,
Bengaluru.
[Rep. by Mr. MCP -Advocate]
2
S.C. 1085/2015
TABULATION OF EVENTS
1. Date of Commission : 7/7/2014
Of Offence
2. Date of Report : 3/2/2015
Of Offence
3. Date of arrest of : 4/2/2015
Accused
4. Date of release of : 30/3/2015
Accused on Bail
5. Period undergone in
Judicial Custody by : 56 days
Accused
6. Name of the complainant : Prosecutrix
7. Date of Commencement
of recording evidence : 3/11/2014
8. Date of Closing of
: 12/12/2019
Evidence
9. Charges framed : Sections 376 and 420 of IPC.
10. Opinion of the Judge : As per final Order
(S.H. PUSHPANJALI DEVI)
LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge,
Bangalore.
3
S.C. 1085/2015
JUDGMENT
This Charge Sheet is filed by the Police Inspector of Banasavadi Police Station, Bengaluru, against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC .
2. The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that, the Accused and the Prosecutrix were working in the Company namely Harvest Futures and closely acquainted with each other. Afterwards, the Accused with an intention to have sex, use to visit her house No. 186, 4th Cross, 9th Main, HRBR Layout at Bengaluru. He visited her in the month of July and September 2014 and had Sexual Intercourse with her without her consent inducing on the promise to marry her. Subsequently, the Accused with dishonest intention refused to marry and cheated her.
4
S.C. 1085/2015
3. Subsequently, on 03-02-2015 CW1 the Prosecutrix, gave the Complaint to Hennur Police Station against the Accused and case registered in Crime No. 77/2015 for the offences under Section 376 and 420 of IPC.
4. The Accused was arrested on 04-02-2015 and produced before the concerned Magistrate Court and he was remanded to Judaical Custody. He was represented through the counsel and granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Pet. No. 1110/2015 on 17-03-2015 and released on 30-03-2015, after furnishing surety before the Trial Court.
5. The Investigating Officer after completing the Investigation has filed Chargesheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC . The Trial Court after taking Cognizance of the said offences, Case was registered in C.C. No. 53521/2015 and copies of the Chargesheet 5 S.C. 1085/2015 served to the Accused. Subsequently, the Trial Court has complied Section 209 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Principal City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru. After, receiving the Committal Records, case registered in S.C. No. 1085/2015 and made over to LXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge for disposal in accordance with law.
6. The Accused was summoned by the said Court and he has furnished surety as per the order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Pet. No. 1110/2015. After, hearing arguments of both, the said Court framed the Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC, read over and explained to him and he has not pleaded guilty and claims to be tried.
7. Subsequently, on 18-08-2017 in view of the notification No. ADM-1(A)/530/2017 6 S.C. 1085/2015 dated: 12-08-2017, the case was transferred to this Court for disposal.
8. The Prosecution examined total 3 witnesses out of 16 witnesses as PWs 1 to 3. The documents are marked as Ex.P-1 to P-21, P1(a), 2(a)(b), 3(a)(b), 4(a)(b)(c)
(d), 5(a)(b) and 6(a). Since the Prosecutrix turned hostile and not supported the case, the learned Public Prosecutor prayed to issue summons only to CWs15 and
16. But, CW 15 remained absent even after issuance of Proclamation. Hence, prayer made for re-issue the same has been rejected and closed the evidence of Prosecution by this Court.
9. The Incriminating Circumstances in the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses has been read over to the Accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has denied the entire evidence and not chosen to lead any defence evidence.
7
S.C. 1085/2015
10. Heard, the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned Counsel for the Accused on merits.
11. The points for my consideration are :
1. Whether the Prosecution proves that the Accused with an intention to have Sexual Intercourse with the Prosecutrix, who was his colleague and working in the same Company during 2014, visited her house at HSBR Layout on the promise to marry had physical relationship with her?
2. Whether the Prosecution proves that the Accused subsequently refused to marry and cheated her?
3. Whether the Prosecution proves that the Accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC?
4.
What Order?
12. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
8
S.C. 1085/2015
Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following.
REASONS
13. Point Nos.1 and 2 : These point are taken together for common discussion for the reason to avoid repetition of similar facts. The allegations of Rape and Cheating made against the Accused by the Complainant. Therefore, her evidence is having importance, whether the said allegations are proved by her is to be verified from proper oral evidence deposed against the Accused.
14. The Prosecutrix Raj Bhuvaneshwari is examined as PW1. She has deposed that, she along with the Accused were working in Harvest Futures Company in the year 2014 became friends. Afterwards, the Accused expressed his love towards her and promised to marry. Her further evidence shows that, the Accused Raped her after taking her car and also 9 S.C. 1085/2015 started giving torture when she was residing in the house at Kalyannagar. He was visiting her house and harassed even after changed her residence to Prakruthi Town Ship at Babusapalya. He was also alleged to be quarreling with her by throwing all the materials out of the house and beating her in the Office. She was said to be paid the installments of car loan borrowed by him in her name.
15. Therefore, as she could not tolerate the torture by the Accused and also he refused to marry her, she have Complaint is marked as Ex.P1 and her signature is marked as Ex.P1(a). Further, the Police visited her residence both at Kalyana Nagar and Prakruthi Town Ship and conducted Mahazar as per Ex.P2 and 3, she has signed those Mahazar as Ex.P2(a) and 3(a) respectively. She was also taken by the Police to Government Hospital for Medical Examination and the Medical Officer after conducting her examination and issued Medical Certificate is marked as Ex.P4 and her signatures as Ex.P4(a) and (b). 10
S.C. 1085/2015
16. However, in the Cross-examination she has said that not remember to say the exact date of Rape committed by the Accused on her. But, she has admitted that when she along with Accused were working in Harvest Futures Company during 2014, he was a good friend of her, therefore she used to express her difficulties with him. She was also admitted that, due to pressure of work in the Company, the Accused did not talk with her and other colleagues.
17. Further, she has contrarily deposed that she had financial difficulties at the time of giving Complaint to the Police. It is important to point out that though she has deposed in the Chief-Examination as Accused was giving torture and Raped in both her houses at Kalyana Nagar and Prakruthi Town Ship, in the Cross- examination has admitted that, he never misbehaved with her and committed any wrong as alleged in the Complaint. Again she has said that, after she gave the Complaint Accused was arrested by the Police and he was in Judicial Custody.
11
S.C. 1085/2015
18. However, the further evidence elicited goes against the allegations made by her as she said only on the say of Police that in the Chief-Examination stated that Accused committed Rape on her several times, after taking her car and worth articles. Apart from that, she has further stated that signatures put by her to Exs.P1 to 4 in the Police Station and she is not aware of contents of those documents.
19. The entire evidence deposed by the Prosecutrix both in Chief and Cross-examination are contrary to each other and she herself said that, she has compromised the case and do not want to proceed against the Accused. Therefore, her evidence is not at all helpful to the allegations made in the Complaint against the Accused.
20. The Medical Officer Mr. B.M. Nagaraj is examined as PW2. He has deposed that, on 4/2/2015, 12 S.C. 1085/2015 the Prosecutrix was brought to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital when he was working as Professor and HOD of Forensic Department. After her local examination found normal development body and on the basis of dental examination estimated her age as 32 years. He has also conducted her examination in presence of Gynecologist and found he hyman was not intact. The fluid collected from her Yoni sent to Department of Roga Shasthra and not detected any Spermatozoa as per the Report given by the said Department. He has issued Medical Certificate as per Ex.P4 and his signature is marked as Ex.P4(c). The Prosecutrix has given Statement similar to the information furnished by the Investigating Officer in his requisition, therefore, it is not mentioned in his Medical Report.
21. On the same day, he has conducted Medical Examination of Accused and estimated his age as 22 years. The Accused gave Statement as he along with Prosecutrix were working in the Harvest Futures, at that 13 S.C. 1085/2015 time, he was friendly moving with her and she forced to marry her. But, as he refused to marry, false allegations made against him. The Medical Report given by him is marked as Ex.P5 and his signature is marked as Ex.P5(a).
22. The Police Inspector Mr. B.S. Mohan Kumar is examined as PW3. He has continued further Investigation after taking case file from ASI. Afterwards, he has obtained Medical Certificates of both Prosecutrix and Accused are marked under Exs.P4 and 5, his signatures are marked as Ex.P4(d) and 5(b). He is also conducted Mahazars near both the houses of Complainant as per Exs.P2 and 3 and his signatures are marked as Ex.P2(b) and 3(b). He had seized the Mobile of Accused under the Seizure Mahazar is marked as Ex.P6 and his signature as Ex.P6(a), the Mobile is marked as MO1. He has obtained the Xerox copies of Rent Agreements of both the houses, where the Accused was residing on Rent. The photographs collected from the Complainant in total 15 are identified and marked as Exs.P 7 to 21. Afterwards, he 14 S.C. 1085/2015 has recorded the Statements of CWs13 and 14, thereafter completed the Investigation and filed Chargesheet against the Accused.
23. In the Cross-examination, he has admitted that no documents relating to Money Transaction took between the Complainant and Accused as stated in the Complaint were collected during his Investigation. He has admitted that the Complainant requested him to get her materials/ articles from the Accused.
24. Admittedly, he has not recorded the Statements of colleagues of Complainant in the Company. He is also not recorded the Voluntary Statement of Accused, after his arrest. However, he has admitted that Complainant seems to be very happy with others as could be seen from the photographs Exs.P7 to 21. But, has denied the false Chargesheet filed against the Accused without conducting proper Investigation.
15
S.C. 1085/2015
25. The learned Counsel for Accused has submitted that no offence of Rape and Cheating committed by him as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint. Further submitted that both of them have settled the matter and the Complainant herself not intended to proceed with the case, the same has been elicited in her cross-examination. In support of arguments relied on the following Citations:
1) AIR 2016 Supreme Court 406 in the case of Tilak Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.
The observation made regarding Consensual sex will not amount Rape under Section 376 IPC. The testimony of the Prosecutrix that she was in relationship with appellant for 2 years prior to the incident. The story created regarding Sexual Intercourse on false pretext of marry her is concocted and not reliable.
Therefore, if no evidence showing that there was any fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the appellant to constitute offence of cheating, will not attract offence under Section 417 IPC. 16
S.C. 1085/2015
2) 1999 Cri.L.J. 3534 in the case of Abboy Pradhan Vs. State of West Bengal.
The observation made with regard to promise to marry the Prosecutrix to have Sexual intercourse, at the time of she was an adult, no offence of Rape as defined under Section 375 and no cheating as defined under Section 420 IPC.
3) (2013) 3 Supreme Court cases 791 in the case of Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand.
The gist of this ruling is the contradictions, inconsistencies, exaguration or emblishments found in the testimony of Prosecutrix amounts unnatural and improbable. If delay in filing FIR not properly explained, in the case of Consentual Sex, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the Accused.
4) 2016(2) Crimes 385(Del.) in the case of Hari Mohan Sharma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi. 17
S.C. 1085/2015 The observation made with regard to when both Prosecutrix and appellant were well acquainted with each other and before incident they had friendly relationship and the physical relation entered between were Consentual no offence of Rape under Section 376 IPC.
Further, if the appellant had no intention to marry her from very inception, the consent of Prosecutrix obtained on the promise to marry will not amount cheating.
5) 2014 Cri.L.J. 2058 in the case of State of Gujarath Vs. Dhirajlal Naranbhai Patel and another.
The observation made with regard to offence of Rape cannot be accepted if no injury marks found on the body of Prosecutrix as no resistence by the well built girl to believe forceful Sexual Intercourse.
6) 2014 AIR SCW 6168 Supreme Court in the case of Munna Vs. State of M.P. 18 S.C. 1085/2015 In this case also similar observation made by the Hon'ble supreme court with regard to absence of injuries and absence of raising alram or delay in FIR, not by itself be enough to disbelieve version of Prosecutrix inview of presumption under Section 114-A of evidence Act. But, the infirmities in the Statement creates doubt about its veracity, the same cannot be acted upon. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must be given to Accused.
7) 2016(1) Crimes 16 (SC) Supreme Court of India in the case of Tilak Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.
The Hon'ble Supreme court held that when the Charge is framed for Rape, the Prosecutrix was an adult and matured lady of 40 years at the time of incident, if she admitted in her testimony before court she was in relation with the appellant prior to the incident, there cannot be any fraudulent or dishonest inducement of Prosecutrix by appellant to constitute offence under Section 415 of IPC for 19 S.C. 1085/2015 Cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
8) 2008 Cri.L.J.1846 in the case of Om Prakash and Ano. Vs. State of Hariyana.
This Ruling is rendered with regard to delay in filing the FIR in the case of Kidnap and Gangrape, in which the Accused persons gagged mouth of the Prosecutrix, a marriekd woman took her to house and Raped her.
Further observed that if no explanation given for lodging Report to Police after 1 month 28 days even she stayed with the Accused and took photographs with him in the studio after the alleged incident of Rape. Therefore, the relationship between them amounts that she was a consenting party.
20
S.C. 1085/2015
26. I have perused the observations made in the above Rulings and found that the principles applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Hon'ble High Courts of different States are aptly applicable to the allegations made by the Prosecutrix against the Accused.
27. After going through the entire oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court, I am constrained to hold that the Prosecution has not placed the credible evidence of Complainant. Because her evidence is already discussed above shows that the alleged Rape and Cheating committed by the Accused will not acceptable, as it is inconsistent and creates doubts. Though she has supported the case of Prosecution in her examination in Chief, not affirmed the same in her Cross-examination, for the reason that she has denied the allegations of Rape and Cheating made against the Accused. Therefore, her entire oral evidence is contrary to the Complaint averments and also Statement given before the Magistrate recorded 21 S.C. 1085/2015 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, only on the basis of evidence of Medical Officer and Investigating Officer, this Court cannot come to conclusion about the alleged Rape and Cheating committed by the Accused.
28. For all the above disccussed reasons, in absence of proof of ingredients of Rape and Cheating alleged against the Accused, I come to conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to prove that the Accused being a colleague of Prosecutrix, had Sexual Intercourse with her, at her residence of HSBR Layout during 2014, on the promise to marry her, subsequently he had refused to marry and Cheated her and committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC. Hence, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative. 29 . Point No. 3: For the above discussed reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
22
S.C. 1085/2015 O R D E R. Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. the Accused Naveen Suhag S/o R.S. Suhag is hereby acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC.
The bail bonds executed by the Accused and Surety in compliance of Section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. shall be inforce till the completion of Appeal period.
The Mo.1 and other Properties seized in this case are ordered to be destroyed as worthless and useless, after completion of Appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript and computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court today on 28th day of May, 2020.) (S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.
*** 23 S.C. 1085/2015 ANNEXURE
1) List of witnesses examined for the Prosecution PW.1 Raj Bhuvaneshwari K.H. PW.2 Dr. B.M.Nagaraj PW.3 B.S. Mohan Kumar
2) List of documents marked for the Prosecution Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 Mahazar dated: 04-02-2015 at No. 33 of Prakruti Layout building Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW-1 Ex.P2(b) Signature of Pw-3 Ex.P3 Mahazar dated: 04-02-2015 at No. 816 of HRBR Layout Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW-1 Ex.P3(b) Signature of Pw-3 Ex.P4 Medical Report of Prosecutrix Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW-1 Ex.P4(b) Signature of PW-1 Ex.P4(c) Signature of PW-2 Ex.P4(d) Signature of PW-3 Ex.P5 Medical Report of Accused Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW-2 24 S.C. 1085/2015 Ex.P5(b) Signature of PW-3 Ex.P6 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW-3 Exs. P-7 to 21 Photographs
3) List of Material Objects marked for the Prosecution MO1. Mobile
4) List of witnesses examined for the Accused Nil
5) List of documents marked for the Accused Ex.D-1 Receipt book blank Middle pages
6) List of Material Objects marked for the Accused Nil (S.H.PUSHPANJALI DEVI) LIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Special Judge, Bangalore.